Mokele

Was it narrated by Patrick Stewart (Captain Picard)? If so, it was this: the discovery channel's 'what if' on dragons Mokele

As others have pointed out, the program is a joke/spoof, not reality. There are/were no dragons, at least not as popularly portrayed. Fire-breathing is just plain not possible, and any flying animal that size would have bones as thin as paper (a good punch could crush it's chest). This is, of course, leaving out that there are no records ever of vertebrate hexapods, which would be necessary for the traditionaly 4 legs + 2 wings dragon. There are 2 theories I know of about the origins of dragons. The first, and most widely known, is that they are myths based on both accounts of large tropical reptiles like pythons, monitors, and crocodiles and on fossils of dinosaurs and other extinct giant animals. The second theory is rather interesting: it postulates that, because the 3 major predators of our primate ancestors have typically been pythons, hawks, and big cats, we retain instinctual fear towards these animals, and thus when man makes a monster for stories, the most fearsome monster we can conceive of is one mixing the traits of those 3: a dragon. But no, there are not, and have never been, any real dragons like in the stories. Mokele

Actually, Komodos are a type of monitor, simply the largest. Most have pretty dirty mouths, and plus even without the bacteria, even small ones can give a really nasty bite; I still have a scar from the bite of a 4-foot blue-tailed tree monitor. Mokele

If we include extinct species, either Allosaurus fragilis (just a *beatiful* theropod, well-proportioned and sleek while powerful) or Postosuchus (imagine the bastard child or a crocodile and a T. rex). For extant species, my favorites would probably be cuttlefish, stomatopods, monitor lizards, snakes, and dwarf caimans. Mokele

Actually, I can. Consider the level of bullying a kid adopted by gay parents would suffer. Now consider the level of bullying a kid who lives with gay parents (one of whom is their biological parent). Can you logically claim these levels would be different? Wrong. The foster system in the US is horribly overloaded, and most kids who are eligible for adoption are never adopted. Is it right to deny these kids a stable home environment because there's a chance the school might not be able to control their own students? As I said before, the foster system is *proven* to be a *very* bad place for kids. Can you really claim that the bullying is so extreme that it's worse than never having a family and being shuffled between homes constantly? Yes, sometimes anti-gay bullying can be extreme. But the solution is to expell the bullies, not punish the target. Why? People already have to deal with gay parents, so allowing adoption does not change the situation at all. Precisely. If I was dating another guy, I'd be openly affectionate with him in public, but my motives would be 'because I want to / feel like it' rather than purposefully using my relationship to bring about social change. Well, it depends. There's empirical evidence saying that children raised by gay parents do not have a statistically different level of psychopathology, thus, since there can be no empirical objection, it must be moral. That's not necessarily the case with polyamory (which can mean multiple mates of any gender, depending on the relationship). While there are poly families raising kids, they're few and far between, and there's no empirical studies on the effect. Now, I have an overly cynical view, since my prior relationship was polyamorous and not exactly great, but it *is* possible that poly relationships may have deleterious effect. Or not. We won't know without studies. It's nowhere near as great as you'd think. Prior to meeting my fiancee, I was in a polyamorous relationship for close to 4 years before I got sick of it and left. Heinlein portrays an idealized version which seems to have more to do with his wishes/fantasies than anything else. IMHO, poly relationships that are open to new members tend to suffer problems due to growth. Any given relationship requires effort and communication to work. A couple has only 1 bond to maintain, but a triad has 3, and a group of 4 can have as many as 6 connections (though relationship geometry may simplify this). As things expand, it gets to the point when you're in a relationship with someone you barely know because they're your partner's partner's partner's partner (I'm not exagerating, I had precisely that many degrees of separation to one person). Long story short, it sounds nice, but operational poly relationships are likely to be transient and require an excessive amount of work for the occaisional kinky sex (which can often be gotten better through other arangements like swinging). Polyfidelitous is the correct term. They tend to be a rarity in the poly community. More open relationships *do* often have complicated rules for bodily fluids. Mokele

Mostly in the form of bicarbonate ions. In such form, it serves as a buffer, keeping the body's pH where it should be. Deviations from the body's pH can, in some cases, be fixed by simply exhaling more CO2, lowering the bicarbonate ion concentration. Mokele

WR and Dak are right: you're merely amplifying the problem or excusing it, and it would be unacceptable in other groups (Jews shouldn't adopt b/c christina kids would pick on the adopted kid?) Furthermore, kids will *always* be picked on and I doubt the legitimacy of the reason is really what matters. Rather, it's the kid's position in the social pecking order; the topic is really secondary. On top of that, kids picking on another kid for having gay parents is something that the teacher or principal can step in and discipline kids for (in contrast to, say, being a nerd). I'd even argue it's more likely that the bullying kids would get disciplined. Last, but definitely not least, the comparision between being picked on in a home and not being picked on in a home is invalid. In the US, the foster care system is overwhelmed, and most such kids spend their lives bouncing from home to home. It's been proven that such an environment is very deleterious to the kid's mental health, much moreso than *any* parenting environment, even one which might get them picked on. Mokele

I'm not saying there's anything *morally* wrong with it, only that the system could be rampantly abused for financial gain or by those seeking to avoid their fair share of taxes etc. Of course, that goes into a whole new can of worms, so let's not go there, and instead simply clarify that my objection was pragmatic/legal rather than moral. Mokele

I'm not talking about arguing against it, I'm talking about a lot of people having a gut reaction against it, however irrational and illogical, and attempting to smash the mainframe. Mokele

Very cool. Just be aware the balls are notoriously finicky eaters. Tempting, but probably not worth the time and effort. Thanks for the idea, though. I've actually toyed with Pelts for root-cooling a different plant, but I can't seem to find a power supply that gives high enough voltage *and* high enough amps. Also, we're talking about a tank maybe 2 x 3 x 4 feet, which would likely require a LOT of Pelts. Not yet, but one day, as my collection grows, I'll start selling off the offspring. Depending on the type of plant, cuttings can fetch between $30 to $170, but a lot of care and effort goes into getting those cuttings. Mokele

Perhaps in the UK, but here, there's a double whammy against it: There's over 1000 extra rights and priveledges that married couples get, counting tax breaks and such, and there's a very, very strong social conservative movement who are stridently "pro-family", and would *never* let this pass (and who have undue influence in our politics). I actually agree with you that it's a good idea, but from my POV, on this side of the pond there's just too many benefits to marriage that people won't part with, and too strong of a movement against anything they see as contrary to the 1950's Donna Reed family. Because it's more trouble than it's worth. Trust me: been there, done that, never again. Poly relationships are stable only temporarily, IMHO. But extend that, especially with poly relationships. If you don't have to proove anything, and there's some sort of benefit, entire companies could simply 'get married' without proving squat and get these benefits. Mokele

I know that most reptiles are actually particularly attuned to low-frequency vibrations, both transmitted by the ground and by the air. Crocs are exceptionally so, since they use sub-sonic communication (there are sub-sonic components to crocodile roars, as well as some other behaviors). Mokele

I think purely logical governments are futile. Why? Because people do not think logically. Usually, they arrive at an answer for physological or emotional reason, then justify it (often poorly). If a government makes logical decisions that the bulk of the people *really* disagree with on an emotional level, said emotional apes are going to do what emotional apes do best: yell, throw things, break things, and beat people to death. While I agree with Sev about intial axioms, I don't think even that's the big issue: the big issue is that if at least some effort isn't made to please the populace, the populace will revolt. Mokele

Sev's essentially playing devil's advocate, with the position that marriage should not confer benefits, regardless of orientation, as that's excessive government entanglement in personal affairs and granting preference. The reason I say devil's advocate is that, frankly, as much as such a position appeals to the libertarian side of my views, I don't think it'll be politically feasable, ever. Like every ideal solution, it's just that, ideal, not realistic. People will *never* *ever* voluntarily give up benefits of any kind, and suggesting to take them away would be total political suicide. As much as the libertarian position has a firm basis and adds an interesting view to the mix, I just don't think it's a viable option, especially not at the moment in the US. Mokele

Of course, any egg also has the potential to be the next Hitler. A dead-end job in a cubicle, a morgage, and a cheating spouse. Hey, I'll be right 80% of the time!

So, while not strictly along partisan lines, would it be fair to say that the opposition is essentially the social conservatives? Mokele

Well, content should be restricted in one way: it should actually be *quality* material. If my tax dollars are paying for these books, they should go ahead and buy books that are at least accurate. While I agree with free access to information, a part of me worries simply because, well, these are US public school students. Due to the total failure of the educational system, these kids have no clue how to logically reason. They couldn't spot a fallacy if you shoved it up their cloaca sideways. They've been trained to memorize and regurgitate, taking anything written as gospel. If you expose kids to, say, racist literature, they'll just believe it, or reject it for the wrong reasons. How sad is that? That I, who vehemently oppose any and all censorship, am given pause by the fact that people are so unable to perform basic reasoning that they cannot be trusted to do anything but swallow information whole and regurgitate it. IIRC, Thomas Jefferson once said "A people who expect to be ignorant and free expect what cannot be and has never been." Mokele

It isn't? Have any liberal demoncrats voted against it? If so, why? My first suspicion of anyone voting against it is simply that their home state/area is heavily religious and even if they're liberal, they need to appease their populace. They why do we have the courts? The purpose of the courts is to prevent the majority from infringing upon the rights of the minority, no matter how popular such infringement may be. IMHO, this stem cell issue crosses that line: those who oppose it are denying research into life-saving cures for *everyone*. I feel it should be handled like animal testing: if you're opposed to it, you can turn down the medicine/treatment, but you have no right to deny me access to the treatment. While I agree it would be *nice* if it became the majority opinion and such, I'm under no delusions about the religious right's ability to spread lies in order to further their causes and skew the debate. Personally, I suspect what'll happen is that some other country will make various astounding medical breakthroughs, we'll import those, and once people start getting replacement limbs and organs grown in the lab, opposition will evaporate. Nothing is as predictable as self-interest. However, my view of politics and human nature aren't exactly optimistic. In fact, I'm about as pessimistic about both as it's reasonably possible to be without being emo. Mokele

IMHO, the books should at least show *some* aspect of reality. However, just because a book sucks for one or more reasons does not mean it should be censored. If that were the case, nobody would have heard of Dickens (sorry, but I *hate* his writing style). Mokele

Well, my pets are a 9 foot columbian boa, a small rescued ball python, and a 4 foot blue tegu (carnivorous South American lizard, convergently evolved with monitors). I might be adopting a friend's leopard geckos soon, too. At lab, I've got about 30 corn snakes of various ages, 4 amazon tree boas, 7 anoles (4 green, 3 brown), 2 baby reticulated pythons, 1 jungle carpet python, 1 baby boa, and 2 paradise flying tree snakes. Mokele

I'm taking a 1-credit 'current topics' course, with no tests, homework or anything; all I have to do is read the papers before class, discuss them, and lead discussion on a paper I pick. Damn I love being done with classes. Nothing but me and my research. Mokele

Looks like spiral-wrapped leather to me.

But that doesn't mean you're right, only that we're all human. Sympathizing with and understanding another viewpoint does not equate to agreeing with said viewpoint. Mokele

I think this is being made out to be too simple. Obviously, if it's unrelated to his teaching, and he doesn't bring it up in class, he's protected on free speech grounds. If it's unrelated and he does bring it up (like, say, in a class on physics), it's obvious he needs at least disciplinary action, if not to be fired. But what if this *is* his field, as it seems to be? Crackpottery is a continuum, and while he's at the extreme end, making it easy to just say 'fire him', the rules need to work for all cases, including cases of crackpot theories that turn out to be right (think of plate tectonics, the asteroid impact hypothesis of dinosaur extinction, etc). It's easy to make the rules for science: if they can back it up with solid evidence, they keep their post. But things are different for fields like history or theology. There's some level of the same, but it's not like science, where you can test hypotheses. As a result, theories have a much bigger 'grey area' in such fields. Any rule you make for these sort of things has to not only cover outright whackos, but the entire grey area. Mokele

Sadly, I don't drink enough to make it worth it. Ooooh, excellent idea! Unfortunately, it won't work with the layout of my current apartment, but that's definitely worth a shot when I move into somewhere that gives me a bit more freedom for such things. Mokele